[D-G] Fwd: sophistry in the media and philosophy
internet.petterson at gmail.com
Wed Jan 17 11:46:36 PST 2018
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Johnatan Petterson <internet.petterson at gmail.com>
Date: 2018-01-17 20:35 GMT+01:00
Subject: sophistry in the media and philosophy
To: a moderated mailing list for net criticism <nettime-l at mail.kein.org>
i do enjoy facebook and spotify: cause they are ai, so beautiful !!
ai is the unknown newest : source of new shapes in politics.
why would one want an exodus out of facebook and twitter?
they are handy tools of expression. they need an upgrade.
everyone uses a facebook page differently. (it would be nice to make
facebook interface visually receptive to the flows of data treated by ai ;
that 'd be better instead than what has been done in talks recently)
this is politics. it means people being used by machines.
as felix guattari and gilles deleuze i would say the term 'machine'
describes well the forces of nature making use of humanoids innate ability
to talk and play memes.
this list is politics. it is not looking _for_ truth towards something
Evident. the same with intercept and glenn greenwalds,
snowden and the likes, are politicians: humanoids looking for machines of
talks and vfx conferences.
if they were philosophers, like guattari and deleuze or bergson, or tarde,
or i'd say like (even him) 'turing',
or someone who creates a situation, they would not be 'talking' &
'watching' : commentators of the situations on internet.
they would use language as a part of a situation they bring forward, and so
_forth_. they would actually be 'independent'.
a politician, at contrary, is someone, who, by definition, does not think,
or cannot think.
he is someone who given a problem, strives to explain to an audience he has
an 'idea', like say, 'constitutional internet',
by which he understands anything which can at once set the problem in the
frame of a flight line : towards a solution.
a good politician, and there are only good politicians according to their
is someone who will gather enough audience(s), so that the situation
co-existing and sustaining the problem of the politician,
so that both problem and situation are modified by this 'small' or 'large'
crowd. the word: 'collective' will of the people, is matched by
this 'democratic' crowd gathered by the sad gesticulations of the
so, hence the question: if there ain't no facebook anymore, nor twitter or
instagram, there will be
another technician, who will create a better situation, which will be seen
as something 'unknown', a 'new potential problem' which
needs be tested by the 'apetus' of the politician's manic intellect: he
needs to exploit the weaknesses in the relation established between
'politicians' (or 'apprentice politicians')
and a totally vegetative, unconcerned crowd, which because the crowd seems
so oblivious of past rhetoric, needs become 'opinionated', that is 'to
become more certain in their ignorance'.
the role of the politician is thus to re-enforce the stupidity of the
crowd. talk demagogy by calling the inventors within the phylum,
enemyes of the 'pseudo-democratic sensibility'. thus the crowd, and the
apprentice in politics, need to turn themselves against their ignorance,
and 'learn', be in favor of 'education' etc.
the technocrats will then favor the inventors to teach the crowd in her
becoming-stupid, to be taught new classes in technology. with bias:
teaching to be 'pro' this, or that part of the technological timeline,
with result with while some study vfx ai. softwares on pluralsight
platforms, some other anon study in very nerdy 'anti-facebook' cyberology.
(like deleuze and guattari said, a socius flights and flows forth from
this describes this list last weeks perfectly well,
and it is also related to other spheres of the debates of
'pseudo-philosophy' ie. sophistry on the media. deleuze and guattari and
claire parnet didn't seem to love avant-guarde philosophers, theorists and
More information about the Deleuze-Guattari